SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations

Concrete Slab Collectors

ASCE 7-05 2006 IBC Other standard

reference section(s) reference section(s) reference section(s)
12.4.3 ACI 318-08, 9.3.2, 21.11
12.8
12.10

Introduction and Background

Collector elements (also called drag struts or drag elements) are elements of floor or roof structures that serve to
transmit lateral forces from their location of origin to the seismic force-resisting-system (SFRS) of the building.
Typically, collectors transfer earthquake forces in axial tension or compression. When a collector is a part of the
gravity force-resisting system, it is designed for seismic axial forces along with the bending moment and shear force
from the applicable gravity loads acting simultaneously with seismic forces.

When subjected to lateral forces corresponding to a design earthquake, most buildings are intended to undergo
inelastic, nonlinear behavior. Typically, the structural elements of a building that are intended to perform in the
nonlinear range are the vertical elements of the SFRS, such as structural walls or moment frames. For the intended
seismic response to occur, other parts of the seismic-force path, particularly floor and roof diaphragm collectors and
their connections to the SFRS, should have the strength to remain essentially elastic during an earthquake. This is
the intent of most building codes and for this reason collectors should be designed for larger seismic forces than
those for which walls, braced frames, or moment frames are designed.

Traditional seismic design practices prior to the 1997 UBC were generally based on providing discrete collector
elements having specific reinforcement to transfer the entire required seismic load to the receiving end of the
seismic force-resisting vertical element. This practice was partly due to, and based on, the low collector force
requirements in the older seismic design codes.

In the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, failure of collector elements, which contained insufficient reinforcement, was
observed in more than one pre-cast parking structure. Collector elements were observed to have yielded early on,
rendering the collector elements unable to transmit the lateral force to the shear walls.

Overstrength
ASCE 7-05 section 12.10.2.1 requires collectors, their splices, and their connections to the SFRS to be designed for
the special load combinations with the overstrength factor, ȍ0. The overstrength factor represents an upper bound
lateral strength and is appropriate for use in estimating the maximum forces developed in non-yielding elements of
the lateral system during design basis ground motion.

The intention of the overstrength factor, when applied to collector elements, is to minimize the probability of
diaphragm-to-SFRS connection failure and instead force all the yielding into the building's properly detailed SFRS
elements. This requirement perhaps had its genesis in ATC 3-06 (ATC 1978), which recommends embedment of
chord reinforcing “sufficient to take the reactions without overstressing the material in any respect.”

Applying the overstrength factor effectively increases the collector force demand by approximately 200% to 300%.
It often becomes impractical to provide a collector element that is concentric with the shear wall/moment frame that
has adequate strength to resist the full seismic force and transfer it to the ends of the vertical seismic force-resisting
element. Additionally, by concentrating all the collector reinforcement in a small region in line with the wall, the
elastic stiffness of the adjacent floor slab may be underestimated. This “traditional” methodology can result in a
condition where the floor slab having larger area and being stiffer than the collector element would initially resist
the collector seismic tension. If the floor slabs are not adequately reinforced for the seismic tension force, significant
cracking may occur, until the reinforced collector element starts yielding and reaches its full strength.

Article 5.02.030 Page 1 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

Design Forces
ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 2006) Section 12.10.1.1 reads that collectors shall be designed to resist design seismic forces
from the structural analysis, Fx (12.8-11), but shall not be less than that determined in accordance with Fpx (12.10-1.)
Both Fx and Fpx are amplified by the overstrength factor. When collector design forces are designed for only inertial
forces the redundancy factor can be set equal to 1.0 in accordance with section 12.10.1.1.

One method used by many practicing engineers to obtain collector design forces is to assume that the diaphragm
acts as a simple beam with uniform distribution of shear in the direction normal to the lateral span and with
increasing axial farces in collectors aligned with SFRS elements, as shown in Figure 1. This method neglects any
distributed tension or compression in the direction of lateral forces. Figure 2 shows an alternative mechanism of
force delivery to the SFRS based on diaphragm shear capacity. Another approach to collector design would be to use
the strut and tie model as covered in detail in Appendix A of ACI 318-08 code (ACI 2008). It is the opinion of the
SEAOC Seismology Committee that the Seismic Load Effect Including Overstrength Factor of ASCE 7-05 Section
12.4.3 shall apply to the strut and tie model. Any mechanism of force delivery can be assumed in analysis provided
the complete load path has adequate strength.

Figure 1. Uniform
distribution of shear normal
to lateral span

Figure 2. Forces
delivered to SFRS based on
diaphragm shear capacity

Section 12.3.1 of ASCE 7-05 requires that the structural analysis explicitly include consideration of the stiffness of
the diaphragm, unless the diaphragm can be idealized as flexible or rigid. By using a semi-rigid assumption for
diaphragms in the analysis model, collector forces, Fx, can be readily found. Analysis software that can model semi-
rigid diaphragms has techniques for cutting sections through diaphragms modeled with horizontal finite elements.

Interpretation of Minimum Collector Design Forces. ASCE 7-05 Section 12.10.1.1, Diaphragm Design
Forces, provides the equation for vertical distribution of diaphragm forces, with the maximum and minimum
diaphragm forces of 0.4SDSIwpx and 0.2SDSIwpx, respectively. When the minimum diaphragm force from Section
12.10.1.1 is used for collector design, it may not be rational to amplify the collector force by ȍ0 as required by
Section 12.10.2.1, since the ȍ0 applies to the forces established by R and the seismic force resisting system.

Article 5.02.030 Page 2 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

The SEAOC Seismology Committee therefore recommends Emh (in Section 12.4.3.1) for collectors be set equal to
the greater of:

1) ȍ0QE, where QE is the greater of:

Fpx (12.10-1) ignoring the 0.2SDSIwpx minimum

or
Fx (12.8-11)

or

2) 0.2SDSIwpx

Transfer Slabs. In addition to its inertial loads, the diaphragm must also be designed to transfer forces between
vertical elements of the SFRS above and below the floor level in question. This requirement is triggered when the
SFRS is discontinuous at the floor level and the load path clearly runs through the diaphragm. But it also applies
where the stiffness of the SFRS changes significantly from one story to the next, such as with the introduction of
basement walls at the ground level. In both cases the diaphragm forms part of the load path between SFRS elements.

For collectors of diaphragms that transfer forces between SFRS elements, the Seismology Committee position is that
additional design considerations are necessary for two reasons. First, when the diaphragm forms part of the load path
between SFRS elements, the forces transferred through it (that is, any design forces in addition to the prescribed Fpx)
are essentially those of the SFRS and are therefore subject to increases for redundancy. Second, if the diaphragm is
acting essentially as an element of the SFRS, it should either be as ductile as the SFRS or remain essentially elastic.

Redundancy and overstrength provisions were not originally intended to be imposed simultaneously on any
FRPSRQHQW%XWLIWKH6)56LVSURSRUWLRQHGIRUȡJUHDWHUthan 1.0, then the maximum force it can deliver might be
underestimated by ȍ0 alone. Thus, reasonable arguments may be made that transfer diaphragm collectors should be
designed for forces increased by both ȡand ȍ0. As noted in ASCE 7-05 section 12.4.3.1, however, the maximum
expected force “need not exceed the maximum force that can develop in the element as determined by a rational,
plastic mechanism analysis or nonlinear response analysis utilizing realistic expected values of material properties,”
and this statement forms the basis of the following Seismology Committee position.

Any portion of a diaphragm that transfers force between vertical elements of the seismic force-resisting system
should be designed for the largest transfer force that can be delivered to it by adjacent load path elements, unless the
diaphragm’s section proportions and details are shown to provide ductility equivalent to the adjacent SFRS
elements. In other words, the diaphragm should not inadvertently become a non-ductile weak link in an otherwise
ductile system. Thus, consistent with this philosophy as noted in ASCE 12.10.1.1 for transfer forces in diaphragms,
a ȡ factor equal to the building redundancy factor shall be applied, but only to the portion of the load created by the
change in SFRS stiffness.

Direct Connection of Diaphragm to SFRS. ASCE 7-05 Figure 12.10-1 clearly indicates that no “collector” is
required when the diaphragm is directly connected to a full-length shearwall. The overstrength factor does not apply
to this direct connection.

Illustration of Design Methodology

The building industry, specifically the structural engineering profession, has struggled with a reasonable method
to construct concrete collector elements in reinforced concrete floor and roof slabs that can accommodate high
force demands associated with :0 and other code provisions. Of particular relevance is the ability of the slab
sections, rather than the beams, to act as collectors. The methods described below make the design and
construction of reinforced concrete collector elements more tenable for certain types of structures.

Article 5.02.030 Page 3 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

This method focuses on the issue of the assumed seismic force distribution used in collector design, and it
presents methods of design that the SEAOC Seismology Committee judges to be acceptable. The key aspect of
any design method for collectors is that each segment of the seismic force path must be evaluated for adequate
strength by checking the free body diagram of forces at all potential critical sections.

The purpose of the following discussion is to illustrate an alternative collector design approach where part of the
seismic load is resisted by the reinforcement directly in line with the shear wall, which transfers the force directly to
the end of the shear wall. The balance of seismic force is resisted by reinforcing bars placed along the sides of the
wall and uses the slab shear-friction capacity at the wall-to-slab interface to transfer seismic forces to the wall. See
Figure 3. (In this example, "shear wall" represents the vertical seismic force-resisting element; the condition for
moment frames or other systems are similar).

Figure 3. Perspective View of Wall and Collector

Where the slab is adjacent to a shear wall and is used to resist seismic “collector forces,” there is an eccentricity
between the resultant of collector force in the slab and shear wall reaction. This eccentricity can create secondary
stresses in the slab transfer region (or “diaphragm segment”) adjacent to the wall. For a complete and consistent load
path design, the effect of seismic force eccentricity in this “diaphragm segment” must be checked to determine that
adequate reinforcement is provided to resist the induced stresses.

The design examples use a rational load path for collector forces and outline a design process that satisfies code
requirements. The buildings used as a basis for the design examples were deliberately selected to be simple and
structurally regular. Two design examples are provided. The first example illustrates the collector design for a post-
tensioned roof slab in a building having concrete bearing shear wall seismic force-resisting system. The second
example considers the same structure without post-tensioning.

Slab Effective Width

A key design issue in this approach is to determine the effective width of slab adjacent to the shear wall that is used
to resist collector forces. Where a narrow effective width is assumed, eccentric force effects become small, but more
reinforcement may be required to drag the collector forces in-line with the wall. On the other hand, if a wide slab

Article 5.02.030 Page 4 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

width is used as collector, more force can be transferred through the slab, reducing reinforcing bar congestion at the
end of the wall; however, secondary stresses caused by force eccentricity would be larger.

The procedure outlined in these examples proposes to treat the choice of the effective slab width as a design
parameter to be selected by the designer. The first example uses an assumed 45-degree influence line to determine
the effective slab width; in the second example the effective slab width is arbitrarily selected to be equal to the wall
length. For both cases, the resulting force eccentricity should be checked and, if required, additional reinforcement
should be provided in the slab transfer region.

Collector Design Procedure

The following is a suggested outline for collector design.

Determine Collector Design Forces. Determine the seismic force distribution to the vertical seismic force-
resisting members by conventional analysis and draw the collector force diagram along the line of seismic force-
resisting members (Figure 4).

Note that a linear variation of collector force along the line of a vertical seismic force-resisting member assumes that
the tributary width of the slab is constant and the collector (which, in this case refers to both the element in line with
the wall and its adjacent slab section) is stiffer than the other connecting members.

Figure 4. Collector diagram for Wall A

Determine the Steel Area Directly in Line with Shear Wall. It is proposed that the section of the
collector that is directly in line with the wall be designed for all the applicable gravity load demand plus a
reasonable portion of the total collector force that the designer can select considering the required number of
reinforcing bars and practical limitations of reinforcing bar congestion at the end of the wall. Then, the balance of
the collector force will need to be resisted by the adjacent slab section in accordance with the following design
procedure.

Select Effective Slab Width to Resist Collector Forces. Example No. 1 presents a method to assign the
effective slab width to resist collector forces based on an assumed 45-degree influence line, which originates from
the “point of zero force” along the collector force diagram (see Figure 5).

Article 5.02.030 Page 5 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

Figure 5 –Effective Slab Width as Collector

Example No. 2 arbitrarily uses the following equation to assign an assumed effective slab width.

§L ·
B EFFECTIVE t WALL  n * ¨ WALL ¸
© 2 ¹
where, n is the number of sides that slab exists adjacent to the collector.

Also, it is proposed that the designer may choose any other slab width that satisfies the check for secondary
eccentric stresses.

Determine Required Steel Area to Resist Collector Tension. Determine the net tension force, TNET, and
the required steel area, AS, at each section along the collector. (In these examples the required steel area is
calculated only at the maximum force location). For most reinforced concrete slabs the net tension force is equal to
the calculated collector tension, FT. For pre-stressed concrete sections, ACI 318-08 section 21.11.7.2 allows the use
of the slab pre-compression force from unbonded tendons, FPT, when calculating TNET as it is illustrated in Example
No. 1. Hence:

TNET FT : O - FPT
TNET
AS
I Fy

where, FT is the calculated collector tension force, : is system overstrength factor, I is capacity reduction factor as
shown in ACI 318-08 Section 9.3.2.1, and Fy is yield strength of reinforcing steel.

The reinforcing area, AS, represents the total area of the required reinforcing steel. Part of this steel may be placed in
the slab element directly in- ine with the wall, and the balance may be distributed throughout the effective slab width
adjacent to the wall. The collector reinforcement shall be placed, as much as practicable, symmetrically about the

Article 5.02.030 Page 6 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

centroid of the concrete section in order to prevent additional out-of-plane slab bending stresses. Additional
calculation shall be performed to determine the effect of collector force eccentricity relative to the shear wall
reaction and required reinforcement.

For pre-stressed concrete sections, the magnitude of pre-compression force, FPT, depends on the assumed effective
slab width, which should be selected based on engineering judgment and verified by calculation to determine the
required added reinforcement to resist effect of eccentric forces and secondary stresses.

Check Collector Compression Stress. Determine the total compression force, CNET, and check concrete
compressive stress at each section along the collector. (In these examples concrete compressive stress is checked
only at the maximum force location). For most reinforced concrete slabs the total compression force is equal to the
calculated collector compression, FC. For pre-stressed concrete sections, since pre-compression force, FPT, was used
to reduce the net tension, TNET, it must be accounted for in calculating to the total compression force, CNET. Hence:

C NET FC : O  FPT

The ACI 318-08 Section 21.11.7.5 design concept for collectors in compression is that transverse reinforcement
must be provided where large collector compressive forces exist. Since the collector forces have been increased by
the overstrength factor, ACI 318-08 gives:

C NET
d 0.5 f'c ACI 318-08 21.11.7.5
AC
where AC is the gross cross-sectional area of the effective concrete section in compression. The magnitude of AC
depends on the assumed effective slab width. Since the resultant of concrete compression forces would be eccentric
relative to the shear wall, additional calculation shall be performed to determine the effect of collector force
eccentricity relative to the shear wall reaction and required reinforcement.

Check Diaphragm Segments for Eccentricity. For conditions where all or part of collector reinforcement is
placed at the sides of the shear wall, the transfer region (or the diaphragm segment adjacent to the wall) should be
designed to resist the seismic shear and in-plane bending moment resulting from the eccentricity of the portion of
collector force that is not transferred directly into the end of the shear wall. In keeping with the code intent to design
collectors and their connections for the “maximum expected seismic force,” the stresses due to collector eccentricity
in that diaphragm segment adjacent to the wall shall be determined using an overstrength amplification factor.

The specific diaphragm configurations, such as slab thickness variations, location of framing members, opening
patterns, and other local conditions, could produce a complex stress state in the transfer region of eccentric
collectors and affect the required slab reinforcement. Due to the vast variation of diaphragm configurations in actual
design situations, a single all-encompassing design procedure could not be presented to be applicable to all possible
cases. Hence, for the discussions in this section only an example of a simple diaphragm segment is provided to
illustrate the general design requirements and a simplified rational procedure to satisfy these requirements.

Figure 6 shows an idealized partial plan at the edge of a diaphragm with the seismic resisting wall “a-d” and the
seismic collector located eccentrically at a distance “e” relative to the wall. The figure also shows the diaphragm
segment adjacent to the wall with internal forces acting on the free body “abcd,” (except the components of
tension/compression forces perpendicular to the free body diagram are ignored in this example for sake of
simplicity.) The collector design force is designated as Fc. In a general sense it consist of a compression and tension
collector portions and the portion of diaphragm shear force along Line bc, respectively, designated as (Fc) comp, (Fc)
tens, and Vd. Considering the seismic amplification factor and collector eccentricity, the maximum eccentric
moment acting on the free body abcd is calculated as:

Article 5.02.030 Page 7 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

Fc = (Fc)comp + (Fc)tens + Vd
Me = (ȍo. Fc) . e
The applied eccentric moment should be resisted by the combined
action of all the diaphragm internal forces, thus: M2
a b
Me = Ve.h + M1 + M2 + M3 Ve

where, the magnitude of internal forces, Ve, M1, M2, M3, could be
calculated in a rigorous analysis in accordance with their relative h M1
stiffness. However, for practical design purposes, the calculation can
be greatly simplified by using capacity design concepts. The Vd
following discussion presents a possible procedure for determining c
the diaphragm segment design capacities. For example, the moment d Ve
capacity of the slab region under direct tension from collector force, M3 :.F
i.e. moment M3 in the Figure 6, may be conservatively neglected.
Furthermore, the shear capacity Ve shall be calculated using only the
capacity of shear reinforcing bars and neglecting the contribution of
concrete section under tension. Hence, the strength limits for the
e
shear force Ve, and bending moment M2, are determined as:

M2 = ij Fy . AS2. ( j.e ) Figure 6. Diaphragm Segment Plan

Ve = ij Asv .Fy
where, AS2 is the reinforcement areas perpendicular to section ab, (j.e) is the effective moment arm, and Asv is the
smaller of the reinforcing bar area parallel to sections ab and dc. Then, the required flexural strength, M1, can be
calculated as:

M1 = Me – ( Ve.h + M2 )
(Alternatively, it may be assumed that the bending moments M1, M2, and M3 would reach their allowable strength
limit and calculate the required shear, Ve, to satisfy the basic equilibrium of forces. A similar procedure may be used
for other combinations of bending moments and shear force.)

For conditions where the eccentricity is small relative to the dimension h, it is reasonable to assume that the relative
stiffness associated with the actions M1 and Ve is much larger than the other actions; hence, without being too
conservative, the contribution of the moments M2 and M3 may be neglected, which simplifies the equation for M1, to
the following:

M1 = Me – Ve.h
The required moment capacity, M1, can be computed by taking into account the effect of the slab’s distributed
reinforcement that is provided for gravity loads, but is in excess of what is needed to resist seismic load
combinations. For cases where the available distributed reinforcement is not adequate to satisfy the required
strength, supplemental reinforcing steel should be provided at the eccentric force transfer zone. Figure 7 shows an
arrangement of various reinforcing bars perpendicular to section bc; and illustrates the terms used in the following
computation for moment M1.

M1 = ij Fy {AS1.( j1.h) + A*S .(j*.h ) }

Article 5.02.030 Page 8 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

where, AS1 is the available area of the distributed slab reinforcement perpendicular to the section bc that can be used
for seismic load combination, (j1.h) is its effective moment arm; A*S is the area of supplemental reinforcement, and
(j*.h) is the effective moment arm of the supplemental steel.

Check Diaphragm Segment Shear Strength. The

slab shear stress demand should be checked for the shear
force transfer region adjacent to the wall and, where
required, additional reinforcement shall be provided. a b
Two shear force transfer mechanisms should be
considered. First, slab shear strength should be evaluated slab
reinf. j1.h
considering the contribution of all available slab Fy.As1 j*.h
reinforcement. The strength reduction factor, ij, for shear
added
should be taken as 0.75 according to ACI 318-08 9.3.2.3.
reinf. Fy.A*s

Vu d M Acv D c f'c  U n Fy  d c

where, Acv is the net area of the concrete section bounded

by the slab thickness and length of the wall, Įc is the ratio
of the width to length of the diaphragm segments, which
in this case is equal to effective slab width to the length of
WKH ZDOO DQG ȡn is the ratio of distributed shear Figure 7. Diaphragm Segment Reinforcement
reinforcement perpendicular to the wall.

Special attention must be given to Acv when the vertical seismic force-resisting member is not continuously
connected to the diaphragm. For example, for an exterior wall that is 25 ft long, but is located adjacent to a 10 ft
wide stair opening, then the length used in calculating the shear area is 15 ft.

Check Shear-Friction at Wall-to-Slab Interface. The strength of transfer mechanism by shear friction at the
face of the supporting wall and/or frame should be checked. For this mechanism the potential sliding plane should
be identified; for most practical design cases the potential sliding plane is taken as the vertical plane at the interface
between the wall and the slab. The shear-friction reinforcement can include all reinforcement that crosses this plane,
as long as it is not used to resist direct tension. Hence, the area of the required shear transfer reinforcement, AVF per
foot of wall length is calculated as:
Vn
AVF
P fy Lw

where, Lw is length of interface between the wall and the slab.

Other Considerations for Collector Design

Using Gravity Slab Reinforcement. The collector design procedure in these examples assumes that a portion
of seismic collector load is resisted by the shear strength along the wall interface with the floor slab. For this load
path the slab longitudinal reinforcement parallel to the shear wall can be used to transfer the balance of the collector
force to the side of the wall.

For design efficiency, a portion of the slab reinforcement that is provided for gravity loads, but is in excess of what
is needed to resist seismic load combinations, can be used to resist collector or diaphragm forces, provided it meets
the special detailing requirements for seismic force-resisting systems. The seismic requirements are more stringent
than those of a typical non-seismic slab to reflect the adverse conditions resulting form seismic load reversals.

Article 5.02.030 Page 9 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Concrete Slab Collectors

The main detailing issues in regard to using slab gravity reinforcement for seismic diaphragm include the following:
x Minimum diaphragm reinforcement ratio and required bar spacing;
x Diaphragm reinforcement splices and development length;
x Symmetric distribution of diaphragm reinforcement at top and bottom of section to resist seismic net axial
force without inducing additional slab bending moment.

Check Local Stress Concentration at face of Wall. The stress concentration at a face of the SFRS
elements should be studied. It is the Seismology Committee's opinion that the local failure will trigger the re-
distribution of the load and eventually the interface between the SFRS elements and slab will carry most of the load.
The local failure will not cause collapse or have significant impact on the load transfer from the strain compatibility
of the slab.

Detailing of reinforcement. Planar elements such as shear walls and diaphragm slabs have a better post-
cracking behavior if the reinforcing is reasonably distributed over regions of high shear and axial stress rather than
being concentrated in narrow groups near the edges of these elements. Distributed reinforcing allows the formation
of multiple narrow cracks over the stressed region, while the stiffening effect of concentrated group reinforcing
results in a few wide cracks with possible localized spalling. Note that the current shear wall provisions allow and
encourage the use of vertical reinforcing distributed over the wall section rather than in concentrated boundary
elements. Similarly, provision of distributed steel in an assigned effective width of a collector element can result in
better post cracking performance than if the collector is made up of large diameter bars in and closely adjacent to the
vertical lateral force resisting element.

Using smaller bars in larger amounts to spread over a wide band of slab will result in a better stress distribution than
using smaller quantities of big bars. Since a wide slab band is used in collector design, this check seldom becomes
critical. This idea is supported from the study of finite element analysis of examples indicating the stress distribution
is spread out in a wide band across the slab section. Even with the existence of shrinkage cracks, the reinforcement
in the slab keeps the diaphragm inertia force distributed in a relatively wide band until the failure line forms. It is
believed that the concentration of bars in collectors changes the force distribution; it attracts the force to the narrow
band formed by these bars and causes early overstress in the narrow region.

References
ACI (2008). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08)and commentary, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ASCE (2006). ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, including supplement no.
1, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ATC (1978). Tentative provisions for the development of seismic provisions for buildings, ATC-3-06, Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
SEAOC Seismology Committee (1999). Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary, seventh edition,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.

Keywords
collectors
concrete slab

How To Cite This Publication

In the writer’s text, the article should be cited as: (SEAOC Seismology Committee 2008)
In the writer’s reference list, the reference should be listed as:
SEAOC Seismology Committee (2007). “Concrete slab collectors,” August, 2008, The SEAOC Blue Book:
Seismic design recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
Accessible via the world wide web at: http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.html

Article 5.02.030 Page 10 of 10 August 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook